[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 23:53:30 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Sat Sep 17 23:53:26 2011 New Revision: 178933 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178933 Log: 2011-09-17 Paolo Carlini PR lib

[Bug c++/50442] [4.6 regression] Constructing T from implicit conversion to T& ambiguous in C++0x mode, not C++98

2011-09-17 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

2011-09-17 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-17 22:35:15 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Sat Sep 17 22:35:10 2011 New Revision: 178932 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178932 Log: PR c++/50442 Revert: PR c++/49267 *

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

2011-09-17 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.6.2 |4.7.0 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/50442] [4.6 regression] Constructing T from implicit conversion to T& ambiguous in C++0x mode, not C++98

2011-09-17 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-17 22:35:15 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Sat Sep 17 22:35:10 2011 New Revision: 178932 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178932 Log: PR c++/50442 Revert: PR c++/49267 *

[Bug c++/50442] [4.6 regression] Constructing T from implicit conversion to T& ambiguous in C++0x mode, not C++98

2011-09-17 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug c++/50443] ICE when using brace-enclosed initializer for C-style array in constructor

2011-09-17 Thread z0sh at sogetthis dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50443 --- Comment #3 from Kerrek SB 2011-09-17 21:50:05 UTC --- Alright, if it's fixed already, that's fine. I only have the full release versions, so I didn't test anything newer than 4.6.1. Thanks!

[Bug lto/50394] [meta-bug] Issues with building libreoffice with LTO

2011-09-17 Thread markus at trippelsdorf dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394 --- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2011-09-17 21:42:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > With fix I commited for PR50430 and the workaround for PR50383 my build > > dies on > > java modules. I believe it is

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17 21:32:49 UTC --- Better adding configure tests...

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17 21:19:05 UTC --- I'd like to have some help about the best way to figure out whether the target supports __int128_t and __uint128_t: is __CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__ >= 64 good enough?

[Bug c++/50443] ICE when using brace-enclosed initializer for C-style array in constructor

2011-09-17 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50443 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-17 20:55:14 UTC --- by "works fine" I mean no ICE, there's an error because it should be a{5,7,3}

[Bug c++/50443] ICE when using brace-enclosed initializer for C-style array in constructor

2011-09-17 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50443 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-17 20:49:21 UTC --- works fine with gcc version 4.7.0 20110917 (experimental) [trunk revision 178930] (GCC) and gcc version 4.6.2 20110917 (prerelease) [gcc-4_6-branch revision 178930] (GCC)

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17 20:40:30 UTC --- Sorry, I didn't mean *extended* in any technical sense, but in the same sense used by Joseph, "sui generis".

[Bug c++/50445] New: Rejects use of constant expression using a pointer non-type template parameter

2011-09-17 Thread schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50445 Bug #: 50445 Summary: Rejects use of constant expression using a pointer non-type template parameter Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status:

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-17 20:33:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > In terms > of operations, at some point for sure the extended integer types *Ahem!* __int128 is not an extended integer type! GCC does not support any ext

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17 19:51:48 UTC --- Ok, I'm doing this. By the way, the type for which we had weird problems was __m128i, not __int128_t (not my idea using it...)

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/50394] [meta-bug] Issues with building libreoffice with LTO

2011-09-17 Thread markus at trippelsdorf dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394 --- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2011-09-17 19:35:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > With fix I commited for PR50430 and the workaround for PR50383 my build dies > on > java modules. I believe it is the problem we run into with Mich

[Bug target/50223] AVRGCC - dont clear r26 and r27.....its a (small) waste of CPU cycles.

2011-09-17 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50223 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug fortran/50438] [F03] proc pointer to subroutine in structure constructors

2011-09-17 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 17:53:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > I think the problem is that the structure constructor is resolved too early Btw, there was a similar problem recently (PR 49112 comment 6), which w

[Bug fortran/50438] [F03] proc pointer to subroutine in structure constructors

2011-09-17 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 17:44:25 UTC --- I think the problem is that the structure constructor is resolved too early (already when parsing the corresponding source line, where 'aproc' is not known yet). Here is a si

[Bug tree-optimization/34265] Missed optimizations

2011-09-17 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34265 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||irar at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread classixretrox at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #6 from RétroX 2011-09-17 16:32:18 UTC --- Yeah, I was talking about specifically -std=gnu++0x, because that implies that you're accepting the GNU extensions into the standard. I suppose that in this case, because the standard is so

[Bug c/50444] New: unaligned movdqa instruction after inlining

2011-09-17 Thread john.salmon at deshaw dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444 Bug #: 50444 Summary: unaligned movdqa instruction after inlining Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug fortran/50438] [F03] proc pointer to subroutine in structure constructors

2011-09-17 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 15:00:33 UTC --- Contrary to what I suggested in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-09/msg00083.html this problem does not seem to be specific to SUBROUTINEs. It also happens when making pro

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-17 14:23:42 UTC --- Uhm, I noticed only now that submitter talks explicitly about -std=gnu++0x, not -std=c++0x. Sorry. Would be the first time I guess we enable a C++11 feature only for gnu but I think th

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot

[Bug testsuite/50185] [4.7 Regression] Bad AVX2 tests

2011-09-17 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50185 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/50443] New: ICE when using brace-enclosed initializer for C-style array in constructor

2011-09-17 Thread z0sh at sogetthis dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50443 Bug #: 50443 Summary: ICE when using brace-enclosed initializer for C-style array in constructor Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCO

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-17 11:23:43 UTC --- I have used the term "sui generis extended type" to refer to types such as __int128 that share many properties of integer types but are not such types (since intmax_t

[Bug fortran/50403] SIGSEGV in gfc_use_derived

2011-09-17 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-17 10:54:53 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Sat Sep 17 10:54:50 2011 New Revision: 178928 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178928 Log: 2011-09-17 Janus Weil PR fortran/5

[Bug tree-optimization/50433] [4.7 Regression] ACATS c460010 fails to compile

2011-09-17 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50433 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Compo

[Bug c++/50442] Constructing T from implicit conversion to T& ambiguous in C++0x mode, not C++98

2011-09-17 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-17 09:48:55 UTC --- yep, confirmed that r178552 changed the behaviour

[Bug c++/50442] Constructing T from implicit conversion to T& ambiguous in C++0x mode, not C++98

2011-09-17 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50442 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug fortran/50438] [F03] proc pointer to subroutine in structure constructors

2011-09-17 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-17 09:30:25 UTC --- Actually, gcc documents that __int128 is *not* an extended integer type: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integers-implementation.html (the comment in the source file specifically menti

[Bug libstdc++/50441] [C++0x] is missing GNU extension types

2011-09-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joseph at codesourcery dot